|
9/11 Documentary - WATCH it in here (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Let me rephrase that for those just tuning in:
FACT: NYPD and FDNY were told to evacuate because of a bomb.
in addition:
FACT: People were told to stay in the other building that had yet to be struck.
(9:00 a.m.): WTC South Tower Announcement: OK to Return to Offices
A public announcement is broadcast inside the WTC Tower Two (the South Tower, which has yet to be hit), saying that the building is secure and people can return to their offices. [New York Times, 9/11/2002] Such announcements continue until a few minutes before the building is hit, and “may [lead] to the deaths of hundreds of people.” No one knows exactly what is said (though many later recall the phrase “the building is secure”), or who gives the authority to say it. [USA Today, 9/2/2002] Additionally, security agents inside the building repeat similar messages to individuals in the tower. For instance, one survivor recounts hearing, “Our building is secure. You can go back to your floor. If you’re a little winded, you can get a drink of water or coffee in the cafeteria.” [New York Times, 9/13/2001] Another survivor recalls an escaping crowd actually running over a man with a bullhorn encouraging them to return to their desks. [Newsday, 9/12/2001] Businessman Steve Miller recalls hearing a voice say over the building’s loudspeaker something similar to: “There’s a fire in Tower One. Tower Two in unaffected. If you want to leave, you can leave. If you want to return to your office, it’s okay.” [Washington Post, 9/16/2001] British visitor Mike Shillaker recalls, “As we got to around floor 50, a message came over the [loudspeaker], telling us that there was an isolated fire in Tower One, and we did not need to evacuate Tower Two. Again, thank god we continued down, others didn’t.” [BBC, 9/1/2002] Despite messages to the contrary, about two-thirds of the tower’s occupants evacuate during the 17 minutes between the attacks. [USA Today, 12/20/2001]
Complete 9/11 Timeline |
I really don't get what's so weird about this since there was a huge confusion at the time. :conf: |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| NYC OEM and other city agencies have contingencies for all types of scenarios. No one should be confused. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
NYC OEM and other city agencies have contingencies for all types of scenarios. No one should be confused. |
Come on! The goverment, everyone watching CNN etc, probably had a hell of a lot more idea of what was going on than the people in the towers, many of who didn't even know planes had hit them! (which was obvious for everyone watching TV).
It happens in every major unexpected event, there is confusion of what the hell is going on and communication is usually really really slow, a lot slower than for those outside of the "accident". |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
There seems to be a problem with what you're implying.
Either you're saying the public was confused and and the agencies involved on that day had cohesion.
Or the public and emergency agencies were both confused.
The latter I do not agree with.
(Before 9:00 a.m.): Fire Department Advice to Evacuate WTC Tower Fails to Reach People Inside
Shortly before 9:00 a.m., fire department commanders at WTC Tower One advise Port Authority police and building personnel to evacuate Tower Two. However, there is no evidence that this advice is communicated effectively to the building personnel in Tower Two. When an announcement is made to evacuate at 9:02 a.m. (one minute before the building is hit), it does not direct everyone to evacuate, and advises only that everyone may wish to start an orderly evacuation if warranted by conditions on their floor. [9/11 Commission, 5/19/2004]
After 9:03 a.m.: WTC Building 7 Evacuated; Exact Timing Unclear
According to a soldier at the scene, WTC Building 7 is evacuated before the second tower is hit. [Fort Detrick Standard, 10/18/2001] However, a firefighter who arrived there after the second tower is hit is told that the building is being evacuated due to reports of a third plane, indicating that two planes have already crashed. [Jems And FireRescue Supplement, 3/2002 pdf file]
Complete 9/11 Timeline |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
There seems to be a problem with what you're implying.
Either you're saying the public was confused and and the agencies involved on that day had cohesion.
Or the public and emergency agencies were both confused.
The latter I do not agree with.
(Before 9:00 a.m.): Fire Department Advice to Evacuate WTC Tower Fails to Reach People Inside
Shortly before 9:00 a.m., fire department commanders at WTC Tower One advise Port Authority police and building personnel to evacuate Tower Two. However, there is no evidence that this advice is communicated effectively to the building personnel in Tower Two. When an announcement is made to evacuate at 9:02 a.m. (one minute before the building is hit), it does not direct everyone to evacuate, and advises only that everyone may wish to start an orderly evacuation if warranted by conditions on their floor. [9/11 Commission, 5/19/2004]
After 9:03 a.m.: WTC Building 7 Evacuated; Exact Timing Unclear
According to a soldier at the scene, WTC Building 7 is evacuated before the second tower is hit. [Fort Detrick Standard, 10/18/2001] However, a firefighter who arrived there after the second tower is hit is told that the building is being evacuated due to reports of a third plane, indicating that two planes have already crashed. [Jems And FireRescue Supplement, 3/2002 pdf file]
Complete 9/11 Timeline |
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say either, all I'm trying to say is that there was a lot of confusion at the time, and communications didn't work like it should have, and if it did people did not realise the seriousness of it. It was all a mess which is totally understandable in such a situation that no one expected or had dealt with before.
I mean just look at what happend in New Orleans, something which was much more expected to happen than 9/11. Despite the goverment's inability to do something, and their inability to understand what was going on, I don't hear anyone telling me that Bush & co was the ones behind the hurricane Katrina, or were they? |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
Information is key to quelling confusion.
In this post 9/11 era there is supposed to be more information gathering than there ever has been before.
All that information has yet to turn up Osama. Saddams WMDs have never appeared. All the prisoners in Gitmo and Abu Gharib have yet to turn up any new information.
Confusion is just a way of herding the cattle to wherever they're needed to go.
Being a confusion apologist just keeps you in that herd. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Information is key to quelling confusion.
In this post 9/11 era there is supposed to be more information gathering than there ever has been before.
All that information has yet to turn up Osama. Saddams WMDs have never appeared. All the prisoners in Gitmo and Abu Gharib have yet to turn up any new information.
Confusion is just a way of herding the cattle to wherever they're needed to go.
Being a confusion apologist just keeps you in that herd. |
So the fact that I realise - and understands - the confusion at 9/11 makes me a "confusion apologist"?! What is happening in Guatemano, Iraq, Abu Gharib, etc is in no way justified because of that, it is totally different things?! :conf: |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
I think that the WMD's and lack thereof is partially what drives you conspiray theorists to believe that the roots of this "deception" go all the way back to 9-11, and the U.S. faking or at least, "covering up" it's partial involvement in 9-11. Because the attacks were the supposed catalyst that was used to wage war on Afgahnistan and Iraq, right?
But the one thing that you guys never seem to take in to consideration (aside from whether or not you believe the U.S. truly thought Iraq had WMD's or not), is that why would the U.S. government try to put together something as complex and down-right IMPOSSIBLE as pulling of a 9-11 "conspiracy", all just to attack Iraq and find no WMD's? I mean, if they'd gone through all this trouble to fake the 9-11 attacks, and then used it as an excuse to invade Iraq, don't you think it would have been a piece of cake to take our own huge supply of WMD's, plant them in Iraq during the initial invasion, and then claim that we found them in Iraq? How hard could that really be to do, after supposedly pulling of this 9-11 caper? And it would have validated our reason for attacking Iraq.
You see, when you sit down and use COMMON SENSE, you can stop yourself from going off on un-necessary tangents. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
So the fact that I realise - and understands - the confusion at 9/11 makes me a "confusion apologist"?! What is happening in Guatemano, Iraq, Abu Gharib, etc is in no way justified because of that, it is totally different things?! :conf: |
I am not justifying those places.
Just pointing out the fact that those places occupants have yet to turn up any evidence of the location of Osama or Iraqs WMDs.
Take a breather and read slowly next time.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
I think that the WMD's and lack thereof is partially what drives you conspiray theorists to believe that the roots of this "deception" go all the way back to 9-11, and the U.S. faking or at least, "covering up" it's partial involvement in 9-11. Because the attacks were the supposed catalyst that was used to wage war on Afgahnistan and Iraq, right?[quote]
That's the gist of it. But realise that using the words "conspiracy theorists" loosely doesn't entitle you to be the one who has all the right information. By labeling people all your doing is not bringing anything worthwhile to the table and actually qualifies as an ad hominem attack short of trolling.
[quote]But the one thing that you guys never seem to take in to consideration (aside from whether or not you believe the U.S. truly thought Iraq had WMD's or not), is that why would the U.S. government try to put together something as complex and down-right IMPOSSIBLE as pulling of a 9-11 "conspiracy", all just to attack Iraq and find no WMD's? I mean, if they'd gone through all this trouble to fake the 9-11 attacks, and then used it as an excuse to invade Iraq, don't you think it would have been a piece of cake to take our own huge supply of WMD's, plant them in Iraq during the initial invasion, and then claim that we found them in Iraq? How hard could that really be to do, after supposedly pulling of this 9-11 caper? And it would have validated our reason for attacking Iraq. |
It goes beyond the depth of your knowledge. Of your understanding. You can be of good use for the editors pages of the local newspapers. Knowing something yet knowing nothing. They love people like you. Believing their thoughts are their own. Killing the messenger before the message is delivered.
| quote: | | You see, when you sit down and use COMMON SENSE, you can stop yourself from going off on un-necessary tangents. |
So far you've tried to group people with questions by labeling them. Then you make things look like you know it all.
So far there is evidence of a crime and yet you have none to counter.
Like I said before people find it easy to brandish useless rhetoric from a keyboard trying to imply they have innate knowledge only to show they have none by using the words that they do, offering no proof of their claim.
A verbal claim by you is no proof. Just because you say the sky is orange doesn't make you a viable source of information. Rather than prissy about with silly non sequitur claims, bring proof next time. Otherwise you're just trolling the thread risking it to be closed with the permanency of your useless banter asking yourself how did that happen. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
I am not justifying those places.
Just pointing out the fact that those places occupants have yet to turn up any evidence of the location of Osama or Iraqs WMDs.
Take a breather and read slowly next time. |
I'm sorry, but what exactly are you implying? Is it that the Bush administration screwed up 9/11 and its aftermath, or is that they actually planned 9/11 (or let it happen)? If it's the former what you says make sense, but that doesn't really belong in this thread since it's about the latter.
| quote: | | It goes beyond the depth of your knowledge. Of your understanding. You can be of good use for the editors pages of the local newspapers. Knowing something yet knowing nothing. They love people like you. Believing their thoughts are their own. Killing the messenger before the message is delivered. |
He do got a really good point though, why the didn't they plant WMDs in Iraq after they managed to pull such an ENORMOUS thing such as the 9/11 attacks (which would literaly need thusands of people to shut up about it, since no one has "leaked" so far).
Care to explain? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
He do got a really good point though, why the didn't they plant WMDs in Iraq after they managed to pull such an ENORMOUS thing such as the 9/11 attacks (which would literaly need thusands of people to shut up about it, since no one has "leaked" so far).
Care to explain? |
Simple. It would've been way too easy and it would destroy the credibility of the conspiracy theorists. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
It goes beyond the depth of your knowledge. Of your understanding. You can be of good use for the editors pages of the local newspapers. Knowing something yet knowing nothing. They love people like you. Believing their thoughts are their own. Killing the messenger before the message is delivered.
So far you've tried to group people with questions by labeling them. Then you make things look like you know it all.
So far there is evidence of a crime and yet you have none to counter.
Like I said before people find it easy to brandish useless rhetoric from a keyboard trying to imply they have innate knowledge only to show they have none by using the words that they do, offering no proof of their claim.
A verbal claim by you is no proof. Just because you say the sky is orange doesn't make you a viable source of information. Rather than prissy about with silly non sequitur claims, bring proof next time. Otherwise you're just trolling the thread risking it to be closed with the permanency of your useless banter asking yourself how did that happen. |
Oh god, whatever.
You're as bad as solgrabber. Do you guys all get instructed on how to talk and think at the same Conspiracy School? You talk in circles and every time someone presents you with any evidence of any kind, you point to this stupid video, or you start talking in cliche's...but you never answer the questions put to you.
You're not even worth a laugh. Sad. |
|
|
|
|
